Alternatives to debating things like religion and atheism

[Pixabay]

Am I open or closed to possibilities beyond my familiar expectations? Do I genuinely respect other ways of understanding the human experience? Can I get beyond certain stereotypes and baggage attached to language associated with (a particular) religion? Rather than asking if religious images, stories, and experiences can be shown to be adequately accurate in a more objective sense, can you see how the teaching and practices help you or others to frame, understand, and process human experiences that are better suited to poetry and ritual than dry, empirical rationalization?

As someone who used to invest time and energy into debating religion, atheism, and the like, I can state that it is really hard to get out of the mindset that there is always one best way to understand everything and that finding and defending this best way must somehow involve a battle of logical-sounding arguments that make you feel smart and superior to those ignorant people who disagree with you.

Even if you perceive yourself to be fair, open-minded, and tolerant of other views, this basic mindset is so prevalent in places like the United States that it can continue to color your perception no matter how fair you try to be.

These topics are emotionally charged, despite how coldly analytic some may wish to claim they are, and that energy bound up with attitudes about related experiences and engagements can take quite a while to dissipate. You can spot this by how aggressive or defensive someone is when discussing religious topics. Especially if this takes the form of emphatically and insistently protesting how they aren't wound up about such topics yet still have all sorts of reasons why they are so certain about their views.

If you can appreciate the questions I began with without feeling a need to start throwing out qualification after qualification, you might actually have those bonds loosened enough to thoughtfully engage with religious topics beyond the normal arguments posing as debates.

I spent quite a bit of time thinking that there some singular way, some right and true way, to understand spirituality and religion, whether this was by rejecting such things or by finding the proper way to practice leading to specific states of awareness, thought, or feeling.  Even when the teachers and teachings said to reject being too rigid about what is "supposed to happen" and so on. There may be broad indicators of going in a good and healthy direction, but this isn't the same as some step-by-step blueprint. Over-identification with a label or specific (ir)religious identity is just as problematic in that you can end up worrying about being a true, good, or proper whatever.

This is one reason why it is challenging for me to try to break down where I am on these thing into something that fits the preconceptions found in debates over religion. This isn't to say my perspective is better than anyone elses. It is just a reminder that there is something beyond the false dichotomies that so frequently dominate discussions of religion.

Why Western Buddhists Need God

[Bolton Abbey - Pixabay]

Take in that feeling that you are bringing from the title above. 

How does it feel? How do you feel? 

Consider this for a moment before reading on.

If you identify in some way with Buddhism and you are affiliated with the Western convert community, there is a decent chance you are having a negative reaction. Perhaps you are even looking to see what I am going to write in support of the premise in the title with a little hostility, ready to be especially critical of whatever comes next.

Maybe even you're feeling a little "Bodhier than thou".

Funny that. Whatever tradition, school, or sect of Buddhism you follow, I am betting that the teaching you have encountered discuss the attitudes and assumptions, the emotionally charged disposition, that one brings into each experience.

So for those rolling their eyes or scowling at the screen, what kind of unhealthy attachment is it that is generating such a reaction?

If you don't identify with Buddhism or if you are intrigued rather than bothered by the title, there is something here for you, too. Let's have a look.

Seeking more than humanist religion or spiritual atheism

English: Happy human Humanist logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post is composed of an attempt to reply to this comment from a thoughtful reader responding to my recent critique of the UUA. After putting my own comment(s) up in response, it seemed clear it would work better as a new stand-alone essay. I have previously written about secularism and humanism (including a follow-up) and why I am not anti-religious,  but this seemed like a good opportunity to update and expand on such themes given that he generously offered a link to one of his sermons about atheist spirituality and morality.

Over a decade ago I am certain I sounded very much like him as I was transitioning from an anti-religious atheist to a slightly more open-minded non-theist. Things have changed a bit since then, but I can appreciate where he is coming from. (All subsequent links are to things written on this blog but in no particular order, and my original comments upon which this post is based have been edited slightly for clarity.)

Here is my response:

Hello Michael and thank you for your reply and the link about your thoughts on morality and spiritual atheism. It is true that if one has certain beliefs about God or religion, then shedding the outer shell of those beliefs can seem like a major release and give a sense of liberation.

Breaking out of one paradigm and worldview involves adopting another, but often at a deeper level things are still framed in the (ontological) categories of the old assumptions. Atheism is predicated on the assumptions of particular forms of religious theism, and thus sets itself in opposition to that which is seen as crucial to religion, sometimes in an aggressively dismissive or derisive way. When embracing atheism some people come to see mocking the view of others on ultimate questions as acceptable and humorous by claiming whole belief systems are unworthy of respect because of the claims or actions of some of its adherents.

From the perspective of psychology and the sociology of deviance, this can be seen at least partly as a defense mechanism against perceived rejection or hostility. Shouting matches posing as debates erupt over conceptions of perspectives such as materialism and supernaturalism. Exploring topics of spirituality and religion can become an exercise in provoking a reactive volatility to particular ideas or an outbreak of a semantic allergy toward certain words that hinder any real dialogue or insight. Little progress is made in such circumstances.

This environment hinders thoughtful and extended reflection on important questions: Is there meaning to existence? Can there be such meaning without God? Is God an inferior or superior hypothesis to be accepted or rejected as such? Does it make sense to believe in God? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is God a person or just a vague cosmic force? Should we rely on God or the self? Is some outside force going to save us? 

Spiritual care for the hurting or seeking atheist

Atheist stickers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Please.

Just please.

I am not going to advocate proselyting to atheists. Nor am I going to  attack, insult, belittle, or cast blanket aspersions against people who identify as atheist. I have a great deal in common with and much sympathy for those who do not profess a belief in God. I have commented before on the decline of manners and increased intellectual lassitude or ineptitude among some minority of people identifying as atheists on message forums and blogs. The ones who at times turn to the same over-generalizing, trivializing of others, lazy or dishonest quote mining, and other tactics often employed by hard-core proselytizing  religious fundamentalists.

What is the point of behaving like the very religious people who love to mock and ridicule the philosophy, ideas, and lives of atheists?, I wondered. I asked if this was a real trend and if so what might be behind it.

Some people like to use terms such as "atheist fundamentalist" or "new atheist" to loosely refer to such people. For reasons that should become clear, I think a more apt term is shallow atheist.

Now I've lectured on deviance and one of those lectures was on atheism, and we came to a sympathetic understanding of why those who feel stigmatized and persecuted might try to neutralize this feeling by reversing it. By over-generalizing about, demeaning, and belittling religion and religious people. By questioning their morals, their certainty, and even their sanity in order to establish the atheists' own. No, WE are the decent people. The ones who have logic and knowledge and facts on our side. We are the ones who are free of delusion.

Now, sometimes this is because someone is still shaking from having left a form of fundamentalist religion or is constantly being harassed because they live in a community that doesn't trust or tolerate those of a different or of no religion. That doesn't justify bad behavior, but it can explain a good bit of it.

But what about those who never continue to heal and get stuck in the mentality that all religion is the same and its all one very narrow thing? Who never move on and instead continue to need to feel better about themselves through crude and offensive slights and put-downs of anything remotely associated in their minds with religion?

Or those who may or may not have never really felt persecuted (even if they may have felt slightly awkward on occasion) over their atheism and who see it as a hip, misunderstood social identity for smart people and iconoclasts? The ones who are too cool in their own minds to ever have anything to do with those backward and outdated fools who are remotely connected to whatever might be associated with religion or spirituality?

No, not everyone knows God is real

Creation of the Sun and Moon by Michelangelo, face detail of God. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is more or less a dogma among some people that deep down everyone knows God is real. Aside from the question of what role that would leave for faith (which cannot exist without doubt--some people confuse faith with certainty), another question is what is means to know that God is real.

This is trickier than it sounds for skeptics and believers alike. Belief has several important shades of meaning, depth, and conviction. Is belief assent or agreement with an intellectual proposition such as "Korea is currently divided into two nation states and is located on a peninsula south of China" or is it an opinion such as "Rat terriers are the best dog breed"? Is it an intuition or a choice?

And upon what is a particular belief grounded? Is it an assumption you picked up as habitus because the people around you seemed to think and act like it was true? Has it been confirmed by your own experiences, and how do you know your perceptions and conclusions surrounding your experiences weren't biased by your pre-existing beliefs or those of the people you've encountered in your life?

This is especially tricky when it comes to belief in God because of differing perceptions on the nature of God and how God interacts with people. If God is within then is that warm glow you feel in your chest a sign? If God is without, then was your prayer answered when you asked for something and it happened? Or was that just a coincidence? And on it goes.

Then there are categories of connections to the divine such as peak experiences and a sense of the numinous. These can include the sensation or perception of non-dual unity with the universe, possession by absolute acceptance and bliss,  an overwhelming sense of wonder and awe generating a sense of connection to a larger mystery. And while they don't have to be interpreted as incontrovertible proof of a higher power, arguably these events are less ambiguous than other experiences that are taken to be signs of God.

Still, there are those who have no convincing sensations, serendipitous occurrences, or extraordinary shifts in conscious awareness. They have no felt sense of the presence of God and no intuition of an overarching purpose to either the universe or their own lives. And regardless of whether the personal testimonies of others or intellectual arguments about the reality of God sound convincing, there is nothing of substance upon which they can sincerely claim to know that God is real.

Let's explore some common themes that arise when expressing such lack of knowledge of God's reality.

The benefits of letting go of God can include coming closer to God

[The following is taken from a larger conversation originally conducted elsewhere. It has been edited for congruity and sensibility, including some new text, but the integrity of its original meaning is left intact.]

People sometimes mention letting go of God. But what does that mean? Was God in your pocket? Maybe on your iPod? Did you set God out with the trash? What you let go was an idea about God. A conception of God. A way of relating to God.

People will often keep struggling to hold on to this perspective, but intellectual honesty often wins out because there were things that didn't work with their expectations and assumptions, including their interpretation of what God and religion is supposed to be and what is valid or invalid in assessing such requirements.

I cannot go into everything I've written on the matter, but I went through the same thing, as have thousands of others. For whatever its worth, here are a very few of the things I have encountered and pondered along the way:

We are religious creatures: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

So are the new atheists right?  Are we at the twilight of religion?

Prior to the age of reason in the West there was no separating of religion as some other thing, it was infused into everyday life. When missionaries arrived in Japan they found there was no word for religion in the native language, even though we would by our standard tend to include Shinto and Buddhism as religions. For many cultures, while there may be some dichotomy between worlds, or between the sacred and profane, none of these elements were optional and all were interrelated. One of the defining (if not the defining) aspect of modern Homo sapiens is that we are story-tellers, and culture is our collective narrative. As Gary Eberle suggested in his book "Dangerous Words", our common societal narrative and its supporting myths and rituals (here myth doesn't mean story that is historically false but one containing a timeless truth) form an outline for how to live a meaningful and successful life.

There are scholars who compare the myths of religion and the theories of science, the way in which knowledge is legitimized in religion and science, etc, so it isn't a strange idea at all. This does not mean science and religion are considered to be identical, but that they are drive and shaped by similar needs and capacities.  I myself have referred to "belief" or lack thereof in (abstractions and models of) God as an orientation to existence. Cultural anthropologists have long studied the key symbols, metaphors, and stories of societies and how they are used to filter, interpret, and give meaning to their experiences. My own shorthand for this is the cultural lens (because then I can also add other forms such as methodological lens, metaphysical lens, etc).

New book examines the insight of atheism, the impatience of atheists

Thanks to the Faith and Theology blog for an engaging review of a new book responding to the "new atheism".  The whole excerpt is excellent, and my emphasis has been added:

Tomáš Halík has produced one of the best and most beautiful responses to the new atheism, in his recent book Patience with God. His argument is that the real difference between faith and atheism is patience. Atheists are not wrong, only impatient. They want to resolve doubt instead of enduring it. Their insistence that the natural world doesn't point to God (or to any necessary meaning) is correct. Their experience of God's absence is a truthful experience, shared also by believers. Faith is not a denial of all this: it is a patient endurance of the ambiguity of the world and the experience of God's absence. Faith is patience with God. Or as Adel Bestavros puts it (in the book's epigraph): patience with others is love, patience with self is hope, patience with God is faith.

The subtitle of the book is Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism).  I haven't read the book but the Introduction is available on Amazon and it alone is well worth taking some time to explore.

[EDIT: Got two different books mixed up here with similar titles.  Sorry for the confusion. ]

Does it make sense to believe in God?

Image via Wikipedia

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All words reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience.

Even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. But if atheists think to little or narrow of God, we have theists to thank for it.

Any God that can be accepted or rejected is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To paraphrase Fr. Rolheiser, God's existence does not depend upon the quality of our imagination. The deep knowledge of the heart which carries an awareness of the Divine cannot truly deny or reject itself.

Instead we may ask, "Does our notion of the Divine bringing us closer to a greater awareness of the Source and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?" In this instance Source refers to what the philosopher Tillich refers to the ground of Being -- the focus of ultimate concern.

That is, God is not another thing, even the biggest or best of a category of things. God is instead freed from such limitations, even as this description itself falls short of completeness. God is allowed to be both immanent and transcendent, beyond what we can conceive and as closer than our own breath, source and sustainer of all that is.

The (non)existence of God -- more on why God isn't a superior hypothesis

Image via Wikipedia

Many  contemporary theological issues at the non-specialist level continue to swirl around the notion of God-as-hypothesis, which is derisively framed by the irreligious as the shrinking God-of-the-gaps and coincides with the idea that religion in general and theism in particular is a failed primitive science.

Is that a fair or accurate assessment?  How else might one consider this issue?

Again I am quoting a small bit from the Faith & Theology blog, because it is just that good and coincides so well with the themes I've been exploring here, albeit in a more professional and erudite fashion than my amateurish knowledge and experience can offer.   By all means for more go there and get a deeper and richer discussion of these matters, but for now:

A hypothesis is either probable or improbable – but the existence of God is neither probable nor improbable; indeed the non-existence of God is inconceivable. A deity who might not exist is contingent and therefore not worth the name of Yahweh (Exodus 3:14). Kierkegaard drives the point home: “God does not exist, he is eternal.” That is the truth behind the unfortunately named ontological argument (Anselm’s “proof” is, in fact, a prayer). At least it is for believers, who, if they engage atheists on the field of probabilities, are acting in bad faith, i.e., in either a fraudulent or downright idolatrous manner. The Creed does not begin “On balance, we believe …”

A visitor also chimed in with a quote from God Matters by Herbert McCabe:

"[I]t is clear that God cannot interfere in the universe, not because he has not the power but because, so to speak, he has too much; to interfere you have to be alternative too, or alongside, what you are interfering with. If God is the cause of everything, there is nothing he is alongside. Obviously, God makes no difference to the universe; I mean that we do not appeal specifically to God to explain why the universe is this way rather than that, for this we need only to appeal to explanations within the universe... (pg 6)

To repeat what I've written before:

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All words reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience.

Even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. But if atheists think to little or narrow of God, we have theists to thank for it.

Any God that can be accepted or rejected is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To paraphrase Fr. Rolheiser from The Shattered Lantern, God's existence does not depend upon the quality of our imagination. My own phrasing is that the deep knowledge of the heart which carries an awareness of the Divine cannot truly deny or reject itself.

Instead need to ask, "Does our notion of the Divine bringing us closer to a greater awareness of the Source and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?" In this instance Source refers to what the philosopher Tillich refers to the ground of Being -- the focus of ultimate concern.

That is, God is not another thing, even the biggest or best of a category of things. God is instead freed from such limitations, even as this description itself falls short of completeness. God is allowed to be both immanent and transcendent, beyond what we can conceive and as closer than our own breath, source and sustainer of all that is.

Some assume "God" is an extra layer or texture spread over existence like jam on bread. God isn't an extra or an add-on. Whatever you are aware of is your level of awareness of God. If you are only aware of yourself, don't underestimate that. There are those who plumb the depths of existence through learning, meditation, praise, etc, but they are technically not "closer" to God than you. They may be more appreciative, and that could translate into a greater benefit, but they aren't somehow more "special".

God isn't a superior hypothesis or a better idea - (seeking/experiencing) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn't a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source.

If we assume ("choose to believe in") God, then everything is part of that revelation.

Do atheists encounter God when they stop believing in God?

"In the New Testament faith means surrender to God. Those who say, 'I can't believe in this God,' usually mean, 'I cannot accept the particular tenets of the religion of my childhood. They were not something I feel I could identify with.' But that does not mean that they don't have faith. An atheist is really someone who has another religion. For them God is not God. But since God transcends all concepts anyway, it really does not matter that much whether you think of God as God or God as not God. For faith it does not matter, because even if you have a belief system that calls the Ultimate Reality by some other name or label, anything you can say about God is more unlike God than God actually is." -- Fr. Thomas Keating in  Divine Therapy & Addiction

If we take what Keating says seriously that many people are asking for something based on a specific preconception of who and what God is and how God operates. If I haven't written it somewhere before, I would expand this and say if you have experienced true joy, beauty, the thrill of discovery, freedom or liberation from shackles of the body, heart or mind, then you have awoken to/realized part of God (or your experience within God).

Take this quote by Robert Ingersoll which sums up what many agnostics and atheists feel:

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural--that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world--not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live to my own ideal--free to live for myself and those I loved--free to use all my faculties, all my senses--free to spread imagination's wings--free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope--free to judge and determine for myself--free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past--free from popes and priests--free from all the "called" and "set apart"--free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies--free from the fear of eternal pain--free from the winged monsters of the night--free from devils, ghosts, and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought--no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings--no chains for my limbs--no lashes for my back--no fires for my flesh--no master's frown or threat--no following another's steps- -no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

It sounds like many people may perceive (an aspect of) God but don't realize it because of their certainty about who or what God is. (This isn't an attempt to impose God on those who claim to not believe, it is a perspective that assumes the reality of God and the sincerity of atheists.)

Somewhat unoriginal but still important: new atheism and fundamentalism (again), Chris Hedges on "sin"

Did you have a negative experience with religion growing up?

I did.

I came from a somewhat conservative evangelical Christian background, went agnostic, then atheistic, then "derisively irreligious".

During that period from leaving Christianity to being very dismissive of religion, I went online to find people to argue with, and that experience and the people I met supplied many stereotypes with which to reinforce my prejudice that religion was toxic to the mind.

Since then I have written about something that many folks with whom I correspond have also noted, the rise of what some have called fundamentalist or fanatical atheism. I can understand why this label would upset many in atheist community. This "new wave" of atheism was crystallized by a few books which came to define the phenomena under an official label, the New Atheism.  (See below for a list of posts from this blog on the subject.)

No, I don't think all atheists belong to this group, are monolithic in their views, or support everything that folks like Dennet or Harris etc write.  Nor is everything that such authors write derogatory or condescending toward religion. Yet the image has stuck.

Chris Hedges has a new book (thanks for the heads up FP) in which he seems to dig deeper into what many have been saying in response to the latest popular books on atheism: the problem isn't being theistic/religious or atheistic/non-religious. It's about how we deal with limitations and uncertainty, as embodied by concepts like sin.

Here is how Hedge's describe the situation in When Atheism Becomes Religion: Americas New Fundamentalists:

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God; we have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgment that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the material advances of science and technology equal an intrinsic moral improvement in our species. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians of the twenty-first century have also forgotten they are human. These two groups peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication.


We discard the wisdom of sin at our peril. Sin reminds us that all human beings are flawed -- though not equally flawed. Sin is the acceptance that there will never be a final victory over evil, that the struggle for morality is a battle that will always have to be fought. Studies in cognitive behavior illustrate the accuracy and wisdom of this Biblical concept. Human beings are frequently irrational. They are governed by unconscious forces, many of them self-destructive. This understanding of innate human corruptibility and human limitations, whether explained by the theologian Augustine or the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, has been humankind's most potent check on utopian visions. It has forced human beings to accept their own myopia and irrationality, to acknowledge that no act, even one defined as moral or virtuous, is free from the taint of self-interest and corruption. We are bound by our animal natures.


The question is not whether God exists. It is whether we contemplate or are utterly indifferent to the transcendent, that which cannot be measured or quantified, that which lies beyond the reach of rational deduction. We all encounter this aspect of existence, in love, beauty, alienation, loneliness, suffering, good, evil and the reality of death. These powerful, non rational, super-real forces in human life are the domain of religion. All cultures have struggled to give words to these mysteries and moments of transcendence. God -- and different cultures have given God many names and many attributes -- is that which works upon us and through us to find meaning and relevance in a morally neutral universe. Religion is our finite, flawed and imperfect expression of the infinite. The experience of transcendence -- the struggle to acknowledge the infinite -- need not be attributed to an external being called God. As Karen Armstrong and others have pointed out, the belief in a personal God can, in fact, be antireligious. But the religious impulse addresses something just as concrete as the pursuit of scientific or historical knowledge: it addresses the human need for the sacred. God is, as Thomas Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. God is a search, a way to frame the questions. God is a call to reverence.


Human beings come ingrained with this impulse. Buddhists speak of nirvana in words that are nearly identical to those employed by many monotheists to describe God. This impulse asks: What are we? Why are we here? What, if anything, are we supposed to do? What does it all mean?

My hope is that the book lives up to the quote and not descend into a polemic against the "New Atheists". If so, perhaps it will inspire fruitful discussion on all sides rather than more reflexive defensiveness. We will see.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sampling of Posts about Atheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Fundamentalism, Religion-Based Conflict, etc. Goes from oldest to most recent and may not reflect current views 100%, but it gives a coherent picture of my thinking on the topic over a 5 year period:

• The rise of the semi-demagogues (anti-religion -v- anti-secular)
  
• Internet Atheism
  
• The Battle for Faith
  
• Cartoons and violence
• To be or not to be secular, a humanist, or a secular humanist
  
• The term nontheist
• Revisiting secular humanism
• The fundamentalist atheist flap
• Sympathy for the jaded members of the secular left
• Putting us in our place
• Buffers against fear
• On atheists and "disbelief"
• Atheist vs. Christian Intellectual Death Match
• Their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken
• When is a cracker "just a cracker"
• Depth but not depth - a look at atheist spirituality
• Why I am not anti-religious
• Sam Harris: appointment to head NIH too religious
• So are atheists getting worse, more numerous, or just more vocal?

So are atheists getting worse, more numerous, or just more vocal?

Image via Wikipedia

You will forgive me, right? Because you know I am not putting down atheism or atheists as a whole. So I know the title might read to some like an insult, but bear with me a bit before you make up your mind.

I have a friend who is very educated and passionate about philosophy, theology, and the history of ideas who went online over a decade ago to challenge and be challenged by people of differing views. Having been an intellectual 1960s/70s kind of highbrow atheist, he became a Christian with a far-left political leaning and an experience and understanding of God that is ancient but yet often missing from modern discussions of theology - a view of God as the foundation of existence, beyond but not less than our conception of a person yet as intimate as can be. Simultaneously transcendent and immanent. This friend, however, has a quick temper and dyslexia, and like anyone who has been fighting battles for a long time, he can quickly become defensive and project past experiences from the internet war zone onto current events.

Those just looking for an easy target to mock and provoke seem drawn to my friend like flies to honey, and it is true he does bring a lot of that attention on himself in the quest for a good debate. But that doesn't mean he lacks insight. And while his rants about the atheists he often encounters are often over the top and sometimes inexcusably insulting, that doesn't mean there isn't something valid to his complaints and observations. So taking away the hostility and over-generalizations, does he have a valid point?

It is hard to quantify anecdotal observations about the education, temperament, and behavior of such a broadly defined group, even when limiting it with qualifiers like "those on the internet", "those on message boards", etc. There is no doubt that the books and articles by the so-called New Atheists have energized a segment of the population who identify as totally irreligious, but that still doesn't help to describe or explain the aptitude or attitude of "atheists who read books on God and religion by folks like Hitchens and Dawkins and post anti-religious/anti-God material on blogs and message boards". Characterizing a group with a broad brush hides the very details necessary to the aforementioned task.

That said, if we simply take one example, we can use it as a starting point. There is a forum that I have been to on and off for over a decade. I have visited as an ineffectual sort-of-Christian-kind-of-Deist, as an agnostic/weak atheist, as a strong atheist, as a secular Buddhist, as a spiritual Buddhist, and as whatever it is I am now. I have also been to other forums. There have always been some places online where some atheists go to run vent their frustrations among people of like attitudes and stroke each others egos and sense of intellectual superiority.  Some of them do this while revealing their profound immaturity and ignorance. This isn't surprising. It's the internet.  You can find the same kinds of places for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. But on our example forum, which is has consistently high traffic, and which tends to mirror trends on similar forums, there has been a definite change.

Some things are the same, with newly minted or newly emboldened atheists working through the same things others have done for generations before them, the same kinds of questions and challenges to non-atheists, the same kinds of arguments and assumptions. Yet there does seem to be a subtle shift. There appears to be less respect for academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, including philosophy and history, and more misunderstanding and misattribution of scientific principles and discoveries. There appears to be less struggling with important readings and issues and the ambiguity they present and more black and white regurgitation and borrowing of ideas. 

There appears to be less interest in mutual respect and the notion that all sides are struggling in their own way for the truth and more interest in demagoguery and polarization. I have observed some of these folks using the same kinds of quote mining, quote and concept distorting, unfair generalizing, etc that some of the especially disreputable Young Earth Creationists have been using for years to try to shake up or discredit the science of evolution. Apparently some of these self-professed debunkers of religion believe it's OK to use such cheap tactics so long as you know for certain in your heart that they are wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Now, I have and continue to know too many atheists in real life and online to believe this is typical of atheism, but it does seem to fit some of the "new" folks who have been popping up over the past 4-6 years and especially the last year or two. Not all or even most -- I can't make that claim. But this new pattern does seem to be on the rise. 

So, if that is a fair and accurate observation, what is up with this? 

I know in my atheist days we used to school the newbies when they embarrassed us with their poor attitudes or immaturity, but now it seems like these traits are becoming more acceptable. So what is going on? Are some minority of atheists just taking a dive into the mud? Is there an increase in atheism with more of the new "recruits" being pulled from the shallow end of the critical thinking and personality pool? Or are more of the ruder, cruder folks now feeling more emboldened to pop up and be heard (or read)? Something else?

Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 3: God isn't a superior hypothesis

Some assume "God" is an extra layer or texture spread over existence like jam on bread. God isn't an extra or an add-on. Whatever you are aware of is your level of awareness of God. If you are only aware of yourself, don't underestimate that. There are those who plumb the depths of existence through learning, meditation, praise, etc, but they are technically not "closer" to God than you. They may be more appreciative, and that could translate into a greater benefit, but they aren't somehow more "special". Again, if you want to know God at a deeper level, get to know and cherish others:

"Let none turn over books, or roam the stars in quest of God, who sees him not in man."
-Johann Kaspae Lavater, Swiss poet

And the thing is, speaking from my own experience, you could even be given or discover a logical metaphysical system that is better at explaining things than atheism, but that doesn't mean you'll just be like "Oh, OK, I'll accept God now."

God isn't a superior hypothesis or a better idea - (seeking) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn't a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source. That is what some are getting at, like Tillich, when he talks about true Depth of existence, the object of Ultimate concern or the Ground of Being.

What I am suggesting is that if we assume/choose God, then everything is part of that revelation. On the surface, it may appear that "God" and "no God" are identical. This is not so. Let's make you an archeologist. If I give you an ancient bone with marks and squiggles on it but you assume it was before Homo had occupied the area where the bone was found, you might dismiss it as the effect of root etchings. If you think Homo may have been there early, you would be open to analyzing it as potential symbolic markings and do additional tests. In the same way, if you assume "God" then you aren't just going to keep seeing that same old same old the same way.

From a purely philosophical perspective, which is unfortunately where such discussions spend too much time, to switch orientation from "God" to "no God" is no more onerous or burdensome that switching from "no God" to "God". Each adds and subtracts an assumption. One suggests there is a greater depth and interconnection and meaning to existence, while the other dismisses this as wishful thinking.

If we are talking about recognizing a greater depth to our existence than the surface level suggests, an orientation towards a more expansive set of possibilities for experiencing life, then sure, that's something that goes along with "God". The whole "God"/"no God" issue is a basic axiomatic assumption, a metaphysical orientation.

On the other hand, for some, switching to the orientation of "God" from "no God" does add a sense of obligation, a sense that they were born for a purpose, and hence that even if their vocation and lifestyle is humble and modest, they are a part of something grander, something that compels them to love one another and comforts them that there is more than just expediency and cost-benefit analysis underlying ethical and moral decisions. Of course, there are those who claim to be on the "God" side who act as if there is in this sense "no God" (except the petty idol of their own flaws they have made) and there are those who state they are on the "no God" side who act as if there was a God (including that aforementioned sense of depth and possibility).

"Christ does not save all those who say to Him, 'Lord, Lord.' But he saves all those who out of a pure heart give a piece of bread to a starving man, without thinking of Him in the least little bit. And these, when He thanks them, reply: 'Lord, when did we feed thee?' An atheist and an infidel, capable of pure compassion, are as close to God as is a Christian, and consequently know Him equally well, although their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken. For 'God is love.' "
-Simone Weil, French philosopher, Christan mystic, and social activist

Hang-ups to seeking God, Part 2: God isn't one of the "gods"

There are some things I would suggest though for the person really seeking God and not just claiming to seek...

1. By using the cliched atheist logic of taking the concept of gods from polytheism and different depictions of God from monotheism and conflating the two and referring all descriptions of the divine as various gods, it may look like you are being culturally relative and theologically impartial whereas anyone objecting to this can be presented as biased. But there is a flaw. Polytheistic gods are seen as manifestations of some higher existence but yet they are represented merely as a super-class of things aside other things. They are the biggest, baddest of the anthropomorphic sentient beings, and collectively they control things like nature, but in the end they have little relevance outside of their sphere of influence. They themselves have origin myths of their birth or creation. They are not trivial, but the question remains, what higher or more expansive existence are they are a manifestation of?

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All terms reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience. But even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. Comparative religionists and theologians and philosophers have been through such issues over and over and over. Even the switch to monotheism, which some claim is correlated to a change in food security/means of production/social organization, was a human idea. So what? All religions and descriptions of God are humanity's way of relating their internal and external realities and appreciating the significance of their existence and of existence itself. In animism, ancestor worship, polytheism, and monotheism, these questions are explored and there is a sense of relating back to the whole, to the totality of existence. In animism this totality is reflected in the spirit that is imbued in every object. In ancestor worship and in polytheism is the often unnamed source or creator of the ancestors or the gods - the power and logic that sustains the whole cosmological system. In monotheism, this totality and this sustaining power become the central focus in a unique way.

But other systems in a sense can be thought of as similar to monotheism. For example, in Taoism you have the space or capacity or potential in which reality can rest and from which it emerges and this is the Tao. And the heavens and the Earth are birthed from this. In Buddhism, you have shunyata or emptiness which is in more or less the same role as the Tao and then you have form, or phenomena. Form is really just an expression of emptiness, and emptiness is really just form. In certain "Hindu" systems, there is a similar non-dual duality of Atman and Brahman, the eternal and the individual. In these systems the emphasis is focused on the totality and its sustaining power/source in a somewhat impersonal way, with the Tao being the most impersonal and the Atman/Brahman scenario the least. In each of these systems, however, there are still ancestors and gods. That is because there is still a distinction between certain classes of concerns and how they are represented. The impartiality and integrity of the system is intact as well as sense of humility with such a system being only partially comprehensible to the human mind. Other concerns were addressed by manifestations of this system, i.e. gods and Buddhas and avatars.

In some ways this is similar to ancient Judaism, where angels were often sent from God to be his messengers or to enact his will in the world. There is a sense of a huge gulf between the totality and its sustaining power/source, which is now conceived of us as God (not as "a god") and humans. And yet we keep seeing prophets and others writing that this isn't the case, and that God is near us always, and that God loves us. Monotheism, then, takes down certain ontological barriers and merges what had been separate. The system is more than a "just a person", but isn't less than a person. In fact, what we consider personhood would be reflection or aspect of the divine Person. Yes, the Source is in many ways inscrutable, but it is is not aloof or unapproachable. Jesus took this aspect of Judaism to its fullest flowering, calling God by the term "Abba", which some say in modern parlance is akin to the term "Daddy" - the reference of a little child to a loving father.

Now it might seem that I am suggesting these Asian forms were a middle step to monotheism and not quite as developed, but let me clarify that this is an ignorant, wrong-headed view. If you ask children in the West "Where is God?" they will point outward to the sky, whereas if you ask the same of Eastern children they will point inward toward their hearts. Buddhism, which has a couple millenia on Christ, says that the highest state is experienced as a consciousness of boundless compassion and wisdom, and in the similarly ancient (Hindu text of) the Chandogya Upanishad, we read: "In the center of the castle of Brahman, our own body, there is a small shrine in the form of a lotus-flower, and within that can be found a small space. We should find who dwells there, and we should want to know him. And if anyone asks, 'Who is he who dwells in a small shrine in the form of a lotus-flower in the center of the castle of Brahman? Whom should we want to find and know?' We can answer: 'The little space within the heart is as great as this vast universe. The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars; fire and lightning and winds are there; and all that now is and all that is not; for the whole universe is in Him and he dwells within our heart.' "

In other words, these traditions (East/West) were coming at the issue from different directions and if we appreciate and make allowances for that in terminology and context they seem to have been coming to many of the same kinds of conclusions. Cultural studies show that in the East perspectives tend to be shaped by a holistic perception and cognition while the West is characterized by a tendency to see things piece-meal, so we can appreciate such differences in approach. And other traditions seemed to have been on a similar track as well. Here is an example from Black Elk, a Holy Man of the Oglala Lakota of the Sioux: "The heart is a sanctuary at the center of which is a little space wherein the Great Spirit dwells, and this is the Eye. This is the Eye of the Great Spirit by which he sees all things, and through which we see Him. If the heart is not pure, the Great Spirit cannot be seen... In order to know the center of the heart where the Great Spirit dwells you must be pure and good... The man who is thus pure contains the Universe in the pocket of his heart."

So, then, just because person describes God as a vengeful, wrathful being that is immature and judgemental and another paints a picture of God as loving and kind, these are not "two gods", but two different depictions of God. Remember, we are talking about the totality and its sustaining power/source. So for polytheism the entire pantheon and its attendant parts and accessories would be that "whole". In monotheism, this "whole" is God. So Zeus versus Yahweh is an inappropriate comparison. In atheism, this "whole" is (as many have described it) a cold impersonal fluke that is bereft of any meaning other than the subjective impressions we project onto it, a system of phenomena and their tendencies that are not in need of any explanation other than causal descriptions.

This is why some folks refer to atheism as a religion - because it is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions that, intentionally or not, by commission or omission, by affirmation or negation, make a claim about the nature of this "whole". Even agnostics either live like there is a God or like there isn't one. The point isn't to argue whether or not atheism should be called a religion, but to properly frame the question of what is being sought or rejected. With that out of the way the other suggestions will go faster...

2. Hence, it isn't really about seeking God, or Buddhanature, etc - at least not with your feet or your intellect. It's about getting to know God. If God creates and sustains all of existence, then you don't have to go anywhere. If, as many traditions hold, we are a part of/participate in the divine, then God can't ever be far from us. That is, the difference between a world with God or without is whether you expect to find God or not. We all know the importance of expectations and other assumptions in shaping how we look at things, at how we perceive reality. We tend to see what we expect to see and ignore or explain away the rest. No one can debate you into making that basic choice to really try living with God.


3. Many people are hung up on why the nature of God or Enlightenment or whatever isn't so obvious to everyone. First, I would send someone back to #2 to think about that a bit more in relation to this question. Let's face it though, with our big brains and imaginations and capacity for self-deception, is it really any wonder that we could over-complicate things to the point that we can't just do what so many traditions advise and sit in peace a just KNOW our connection to all things and that which sustains all things? The general idea expressed by karmic entanglements and by original sin can be reframed for those hung up by the terms. The basic idea is that sentient beings have the capacity to imagine and communicate real and false views and to create choices based on such views. We can be distracted and misled by these views and the feelings the generate.

By not seeing ourselves as being part of an complete, interdependent whole, we A) have a sense of incompleteness deep in our being that we try to fulfill, which can lead us to B) unhealthy cravings for that which we think can fill that hole, and in turn we C) continue to seek fulfillment in ways that in the long run are ineffective. Also, if we fail to see our (the value) of our connections to others, it is that much easier to ignore, abuse or manipulate them in our quest for wholeness. Some even resort to charity, because it makes them feel good about themselves. But their shallowness is exposed when they don't receive the gratitude and recognition they believe they deserve. In the end, it is recognizing we ARE a part of a complete whole and that we are not isolated that is the key to what various traditions label as liberation or salvation. But this requires humility and gratitude.

4. Liberation/salvation - removing the barriers to knowing or fullest selves (and hence a greater appreciation of/insight into God) - is intertwined with true humility and gratitude. If you are seeking humility and gratitude, think of everything that has to happen every day just for you to exist, let alone survive or thrive. Think of all the people that are involved in getting the various items you eat to your store, from the earliest cultivators and hunters to the guy who unloaded the truck and stocked the shelves. Many traditions also tell us to love others as much or moreso than ourselves. That is bound up with humility and gratitude. But for some of us it doesn't get through. Which is why some taught to seek God in the least - that is, among the poor, the sick, those with bad reputations, criminals, and outcasts. It isn't that the rich and privileged don't suffer - some of them may suffer more than the poor! But being among the rejects, not as a savior, or helper, or charity-giver, but as an equal, as a fellow human being, and really getting to know these people. It can turn your understanding of how thing are or how you thought they are on its head. It can screw up your priorities. Some think that such people show us God because they are desperate and need to believe (the old "crutch" argument), but you may just find that this gets things backwards - that because they aren't blinded by many of our distractions they have a clearer view.


*Note, my use of "complete" here, as in "complete whole", doesn't complete as in having exhausted itself or finished some goal; rather it means complete as in meeting our most fundamental needs which can include offering us the challenges necessary for our growth and development.

Sam Harris: appointment to head NIH too religious

Science Is in the Details
By SAM HARRIS
Published: July 26, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA has nominated Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. It would seem a brilliant choice. Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published “The Language of God,” in which he claimed to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity...

But as director of the institutes, Dr. Collins will have more responsibility for biomedical and health-related research than any person on earth, controlling an annual budget of more than $30 billion. He will also be one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States. For this reason, it is important that we understand Dr. Collins and his faith as they relate to scientific inquiry...

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion...

Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

NY Times Op-Ed Page

I can see where Harris would be concerned given what he has made public about his views on religion. I don't see that he makes a solid case for worrying about Collins at NIH, though.

He implies that Collins' believes in a form of intelligent design in his characterization of Collins' take on theistic evolution. His primary example is that Collins suggested that God gifted morality, free will, and immortal soul after evolution provided a sufficiently advanced "house" in the form of a human brain, and that morality as a byproduct of evolution only makes good and evil meaningless. 

On the surface, I disagree. But then, I never took the time to talk to Francis Collins for clarification. Did Harris? I will concede that Harris may have additional information at his disposal.

Based on the information given in the op-ed, I would disagree with the phrasing that God "gifted" humanity with free will and morality. I have a complicated relationship with the term God and how it is conceived. My spiritual sensibilities are informed by Christianity, atheism, Buddhism, and panentheism. A conservative evangelical or fundamentalist of any stripe I am not. 

There are those who see God reflected in the unfolding of the natural world not as a tinkerer or overseer but as the heart of basic properties of existence, in which case the "gifted" phrasing can be understood as saying that evolution itself is a manifestation of God. Is that what Collins means or does he mean God literally instilled these things with zap of the Almighty Finger? Kapow!

The op-ed implies something closer to the latter, and the language Collins employed can be used to support that assumption. If that is so, I would agree with Harris in finding this way of viewing the process of evolution unlikely and unappealing, and I would object vociferously if (note the preposition) Collins used this belief to discourage, underfund or reject scientific studies of the evolution of the mind. But what evidence do we have he would behave this way anywhere in his professional track record?

More importantly, if Collins is not implying some kind of tinkering by a deity, then the process by which these "gifts" emerged can be studied just like any other feature in the biological realm. The question of whether the most fundamental aspects of the qualities of existence should include a discussion of God would be a completely separate issue.  

The belief that the full substance and nature of something is limited to what science can demonstrate is not a scientific fact, it is a metaphysical belief. I didn't see any evidence that Collins would be ready to abuse his authority to keep fellow scientists from studying free will (or agency as it is redefined in the social sciences) and morality from a scientific perspective. 

What I do see is that he is stating his own metaphysical belief that such studies will always be incomplete and that it would be a mistake to take the outcome of such methodological naturalism and assume it is all there is (referring to "materialistic atheism"), that is, embracing ontological naturalism. Why should Collins' distaste for strong atheism be any more of a concern about his objectivity than Harris' similar distaste for religion?



Is there anything at all to Collins' concern that if morality was shaped by evolution that good and evil are illusions? Well, more on what I think evolution means for morality in a moment. But first, let me say that if Collins feels that his views on morality are endangered by studying this phenomenon from an evolutionary point of view and this leads him to cut funding for such research, again, I will be out there protesting.

When it comes to morality, there is a problem with making it solely an evolutionary byproduct without reference to some greater context, whatever that might be (it doesn't have to be some classical view of "God"), given the metaphysical assumptions that come part and parcel with some forms of Darwinism. That is, that everything must somehow enhance inclusive fitness or it would be filtered out by selection. In a nutshell, within such a high pressure selective regime emphasizing trait-as-adaption a capacity and drive to engage in moral behavior is only useful if it pays off in a cost-benefit analysis.

The benefits to morality might include increased trust and less stress worrying over being caught and punished for offensive behavior. On a larger group level, morality can facilitate more complex social interactions among intelligent animals by reducing aggression and competition. Examples of potential costs include giving up individual opportunities for gain in the short term in hopes for returns on moral behavior in a group level in the long term. 

Yet in the most hardcore of Darwinian regimes, if you take a calculated risk that you won't face reprisals for your immoral behavior, then being as selfish as possible is the greater evolutionary advantage. In such a regime where we might assume that each trait is shaped independently to maximize fitness, the components permitting and compelling morality would best serve their host by finding the optimal balance between being good and being bad.


Nor is this supposition, as the furor over an article suggesting that many men would rape women if they thought they could get away it reveals. The uproar included the question of whether something like rape, or any behavioral feature, can be assumed to be adaptive. Many rapes occur in contexts where impregnation would be unlikely or impossible, suggesting that rape is more likely to be explained as a pathological aspect of behavior rather than an adaptive one.

At a deeper level, adaptive scenarios for morality based solely on selection pressure can readily suggest that such behavior subverts agency, or the ability to choose despite our biology or conditioning. If we have sufficient agency to override our moral impulses, then morality as a biological adaptation is undermined.

What if we take a biocultural approach, in which our capacity and impulse for morality is shaped and strengthened by our culture? A cynic could complain that morality then is just a trick of the mind, from your biological and cultural heritage, that may or may not be an evolutionary advantage in a given context.

OK, well, let's go with that. Morality as a biocultural adaptation. Following that logic, as social animals let us assume that our propensity for and benefit from moral behavior outweighs that of our immoral behavior more often than not. Sounds like a good adaptation, yes? 

From an atheistic perspective, conveniently all of the thousands of years of cultural customs, social norms and the like concerning morality and ethics, those based on belief in a greater meaning and purpose to existence and/or a higher power, can be explained in a Darwinian scenario. Hence these basic ethical systems and principles can be "borrowed" or "adopted" without any thought to the actual history or cultural context from which they are taken, or without even asking why one might be historically or culturally predisposed to prefer that particular system of ethics.

Yet as any good evolutionary biologist worth their salt can tell you, if circumstances change, so does what is best for inclusive fitness. For example, some scholars working in evolutionary psychology claim our behavioral capacities and tendencies are lagging behind and are still stuck in the stone age. Could that be true of our biological propensity for morality as well? Is it lagging behind, still stuck in a world where we lived with 40 to 100 people in an egalitarian group where economic and ethical reciprocity was essential for survival?

What would such outdated morality mean in our current corporate civilizations? I mean, as the context changes, so too does the relative value of any trait in this kind of system. Maybe morality as we have it is outmoded and we don't even know it? Perhaps the ideal behavioral instincts for maximizing fitness in the modern age would include things that would go against our present "sensibilities"? (For the record, I tend to think in broader terms of our capacity to respond mentally to challenges via several interacting types of problem-solving capacities, but let us follow a form of the argument where that is irrelevant and treat morality as a single trait-complex.)





If morality is tied to selection and selection is tied to environmental context, then doesn't that mean that morality is ultimately a fluid thing? Isn't it possible that there are many different possible constructions of such a biocultural adaptation, the suitability of each determined by the prevailing adaptive landscape? Does that not imply that our sense and practice of morality could be as malleable as any other biological trait in the face of mutations or any other cultural construction in the face of innovation? 


I am not saying this isn't true, or that if we don't like it that this disfavor would make it less true. But it does at least give some insight into why Collins' might have expressed such dismay over explaining morality strictly in terms of evolution. I am not sure who wouldn't be at least a little off-put by the idea that our moral capacity and preferences could be so ephemeral.

And what of the metaphysical foundations which some may wish to ignore even as they "borrow" conventional morality? Even a proudly atheist friend of mine used to chide me about this back when I thought astrophysics and evolutionary biology could explain everything, pointing out that even folks like Aristotle realized there must be something deeper in the universe that is resonating with the human mind in perceiving and pondering questions of morality or in having a capacity to choose. Was he right? I still don't claim to know.

This friend actually held to a view in which there were "higher powers", but they were not super-beings or sentient beings as we would classify such, they were the primary fundamental forces which formed and held together reality, forces which are reflected in our qualia like "personal" and "aware" on one level but which were more directly the substance/essence of "love" and "freedom". Hence, in a universe without the stereotypical "Big Guy in the Sky" watching and directing everything, this atheist believed in a world founded on a principle expressed in the duality of love and freedom and in which life, including sentient life, was not a fluke but the outcome of the nature of reality. This has been echoed on some level by academics such as Stuart Kauffman. 

Might morality be such an embedded or implicit aspect our biology?

If my memory is correct at some point Harris professed an interest in the mystical nature of Eastern religions and their take on forms of awareness and consciousness, yet even these systems share metaphysical platforms for universal meaning and connectedness that are comparable to the ancient Greeks and my atheist friend. And, might I say, with various strands of western theology, such as pantheistic and especially panentheistic perspectives. Yes, terms like Tao and shunyata and Dharmakaya are also steeped in these kinds of metaphysical assumptions and considerations.

Of course, as the picture of our world continues to change, for example, as the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena is increasingly demonstrated, as the nature of this interdependence continues to conjure terms like (a fundamental form of bare) "awareness", and as cooperation and community are increasingly recognized as being undervalued aspects of evolutionary biology, the question of what it means to use an evolutionary window or lens to study morality is itself going to change. (I say "window" or "lens" because it is less presumptuous than "basis for" and doesn't automatically assume the correctness or incorrectness of such a form of reductionism.) Topics like suffering are similarly complex. And just as important.

If Collins allows his personal belief to hamper such progress, I will be out there calling for his immediate removal. But I don't think his expressed religious beliefs or concerns over atheism make him unfit to be a Washington bureaucrat, and assuming I had any say in the matter, I wouldn't oppose his appointment because of those views.

Depth but not depth - a look at atheist spirituality

Does the concept of atheistic spirituality sound hollow or flimsy to you? Does it sound substantive? In a recent episode of the televised medical drama House, the eponymous lead character and his team of fellow diagnosticians were attempting to solve a case involving "cancer but not cancer". That is, something which in some ways acted like cancer but which did not give the usual tell-tale signals of cancer. I hate to give out spoilers to those who may have recorded the episode, so if that is you, come back after watching it.

Go on. Take your time. I don't mind waiting.

Better? The problem and the solution seemed like it might be apt in considering the exploration of spirituality and how this is connected to atheism. In the episode of House, several people who received transplants from the same organ donor suddenly start dying of traumatic organ failure. The link is obviously the donor, but donors are screened for diseases, which the team verifies were correctly ruled out. Cancer, when it metastasizes, can go global and affect a variety of tissues and organs. But there were no typical tumors found in any of the dead recipients. The remaining live recipient also shows no abnormal masses. The donor had no signs of cancer either. It isn't cancer. Yet none of long shot alternative diagnoses, for which the show is famous, pan out. So it has to be cancer, but it isn't cancer. They are looking for something then that "is cancer but not cancer".

It turns out the cancer was stem-cell cancer. The stem cells would randomly land in areas where growth or healing was occurring and differentiate partially into the type of tissue in their immediate vicinity. But because they weren't fully differentiated, they couldn't actually do the work of they tissue type the were mimicking. They were also structurally weak, so that when the organ or tissue came under any kind of pressure, it ruptured, leading to the death of the patient. That is, the cancer cells weren't a problem right away because they weren't spreading or forming tumors and in general the surrounding tissue was picking up the slack. But when the critical moment came, the poser tissue wasn't up to the job.

Turning back to spirituality, various sacred traditions speak of depth. Of existence being more than what tends to breeze by our senses. This depth includes an orientation towards what the theologian Paul Tillich referred to as the object of Ultimate Concern. He was clear though that terms like object were misleading. He also referred to this as Being, or the ground of existence. Hence rather than being an object alongside of other objects, he was talking about that which unites all of existence - that from which existence springs and to which it flows. To use a Buddhist analogy, the water (ground of being) from which we see waves (phenomena) spring. Quoting Tillich from The Shaking of the Foundations,

"The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not."


(emphasis added)

There are those who either claim to be nihilists when it comes to such depth or whose arguments about existence and meaning leave room for nothing else, even if they do not explicitly acknowledge it. For everyone else, even if they claim to be irreligious or aspiritual, they act as if there is depth, even a depth they don't consciously claim to believe in. Then there are those who quietly or loudly proclaim a belief in such depth, but who give no other evidence of such a conviction. The true nihilists, whatever label they may outwardly wear, seem to be a really small minority given how a majority of humans live. It is likely then that many self-professed atheists are simply prejudiced against the language of the sacred. However, they believe in an intelligible reality which appears to contain some kind of regularity. They are impressed with what is sometimes referred to as the horizontal dimension, stretching forward into the future, back into the past, and out into the distant edge of the furthest galaxies. But many are less aware or concerned with the vertical dimension - the eternal present in and beyond all the phenomena of time and space. Moreover, in their rush to be "not" theists, they tend to present their beliefs as the opposite of what theists discuss. Hence, even though it need not be a part of the atheists' assumptions of a Godless universe, they include notions such as "the world has no ultimate meaning or order" or "the universe is a cold and cruel place". Apparently while these qualities are not acceptable to assume in a Godless universe, other qualities (i.e. intelligibility, order) can be assumed to be possible without God because they are more obvious to the casual observer.

That brings us back to atheist spirituality. On the one hand, this can refer to those profess atheism but who also have desire to seek what Tillich's expressed as depth. Being allergic to religion, they attempt to find ways to reconcile the standard atheist notions of no ultimate meaning and a universe with only the superficial appearance of an underlying pulse or greater pattern with the search for their own personal connection to the attributes of someone who recognizes depth in themselves and the world of which they are a part. This can be frustrating - like trying to reinvent the wheel without wanting to believe in roundness. Then there are those who essentially believe in the kind of depth Tillich describes without assuming that it must be limited to any culture or religion's conception of God or a Higher Power. However, in such cases they may cease to think of themselves as atheists in the commonly understood sense and try to locate some term to describe their orientation that lies outside of the conventional representation Atheist vs. Theist or Agnostic.

In any event, if we momentarily take those who consciously sense and respond to such depth out of the atheist column, even if they object to being removed, then the difference between atheism and everything else becomes much clearer, as does the notion of atheist spirituality. Nihilism and spirituality are antagonists. If you try to fill that gap or longing for depth with Yoga, Buddhism, Quakerism, Humanism, or something else but are still rooted in a nihilistic frame of reference, then what results is "depth but not depth". The same is true for those who claim a depth they don't really know or grasp, their shallowness hidden under a facade of religiosity. Like the poser cells in the transplant recipients, it may look good but it isn't doing anything of true value. Folks may not notice because other aspects of their lives are picking up the slack. But when that critical moment comes...

When is a cracker "just a cracker"

It's just a flag and some rope...



It's just a flag and a badge...



It's just a man and a cracker...

(photo credited to Agencia Brasil)

On a basic level, these statements are all true. However, who can be aware of history and not realize the significance of the Nazi flag and the yellow badges to those of Jewish heritage? Or what the Confederate flag coupled with a noose implies to African-Americans? In the aftermath of the incidents in Jena, Louisiana some tried to excuse the noose that was placed in a tree on high school property as a "joke", and the controversy sparked copycats on college campuses, raising concerns over historical ignorance and and racial insensitivity.

Our realities are constructed in our conscious awareness through symbols that are imbued with meaning, even for those who consider themselves rational empiricists. Even though our cognitive maps of reality may differ and our narratives of existence may vary somewhat from one person and one group to the next, we all have the capacity to appreciate and even tolerate symbols we ourselves do not empower with the same value. In fact this is the challenge of living in a pluralistic society - deciding the rules for respecting each others ways of understanding and valuing our existence.

There is of course a danger when we start to value abstractions and symbols over lived experience or philosophies and affiliations over living beings. In politics this error can be seen in the extreme rhetoric of jingoism, the distorted imitation of genuine patriotism. The symbols of the nation are conflated with the principles for which they stand and in some cases trump those principles - that is, protecting the flag outweighing freedom of expression. Slogans and judgementalism are also part of the mix, with a strong distinction between those who are "with" or "against" a group based on whether they "honor" the right symbols (which in practice is virtually idolatry) and profess the proper beliefs, at least in public.

The same kind of mentality has also been observed for some religious institutions as well. It is also recognized that sacred traditions have the power to magnify what is the human heart, giving birth to some of the worst and some of the best of which humans are capable. When these two trends merge in an ugly way, the result can be religious intolerance and persecution. In some cases, a good-humored satire, a healthy dose of comic irreverence, can defuse the tensions which would otherwise see "Commies", "terrorists", or "blasphemers" under every rock and around every corner. I deeply revere the teachings of the Buddha and Jesus, yet I find the episodes of South Park featuring these characters in absurd situations among my favorites (see "Super Best Friends" or "Fantastic Easter Special").

Of course, not everyone would agree with me and would find those episodes deeply offensive. Yet some of those folks may chuckle at milder forms of parody or criticism. In one sense, whether someone has gone "too far" in criticizing or disrespecting some aspect of another person's or groups beliefs is fairly subjective. But there are some clues which suggest one is headed in that direction, such as: blatant and blanket disrespect towards an entire group which is directed as often or more often at the people than towards their beliefs; open hostility expressed in cruel mockery such as the vulgar abuse of uncharitable strawmen caricatures; and taking pleasure in intentionally upsetting or disturbing members of the groups in question.

Which brings us to a recent controversy over a Eucharistic host, the wafer that is blessed by a priest in Christian traditions such as Catholicism during the observance of Holy Communion, the celebration honoring the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples. In Catholicism it is taught that after the blessing of the wafer it hosts the presence of Christ (hence the name) - it becomes the same in substance as the body of Christ. Only those who have received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation and who are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church are allowed to receive and east the host. This isn't just an isolated belief among other beliefs in Catholicism. It is part of a whole in which the faithful seek to honor and obey God by honoring and following the example and teaching of Jesus.

Initial news storie concerning the controversy began by reporting when Webster Cook, college student at UCF who objected to churches holding services on the campus of a public university, removed a consecrated host from a Catholic service. After a sever over-reaction by some Catholics including reports of death threats, the student claimed he had merely been curious about the host and had not intended to cause any controversy or to upset anyone. In the end the Cook returned the host, focusing on his claims that excessive force was used in trying to keep him from taking the host and expressing an interest in a positive fruitful reconciliation of his difference with the local Diocese.

Those who threatened violence against Cook are guilty of that ugliness of putting their reverence of the holy ahead of their obedience to the holy, as Christ advocated love and peace. It is as absurd as the death threats made by some Muslims to the employees of a Danish newspaper which had published (offensively drawn)images of the prophet Mohammed. The local Diocese rightly rebuked any threats toward the young man, who in turn expressed his ignorance of the pain he had caused by his actions.

But the story does not end here. Instead PZ Myers, a college professor and blogger who regularly expresses his disdain for anything promoting or revering the sacred, especially religion, decided to involve himself by asking his readers to intentionally take a consecrated host from a Catholic service for the sole purpose of sending it to Myers to be desecrated. Myers wasted no time going through with his plan.

In describing his disrespecting of a Eucharistic host Myer's doesn't neglect to mention that the badges used by the Nazis to identify Jews (as per the pictures at the start of the post) were first used by the Catholic Church, an organization which has a tragic history of persecuting people of different faiths, and particularly those of Jewish heritage. Part of this persecution included the charge of desecrating a Eucharistic host. (As an aside, it might be possible to find Jews or Muslims who would view the image of the Pope and a consecrated host as much signs of violent oppression as the other sets of images.)

Myer's frustration and annoyance over the revelation that Catholics still revere the Eucharistic host (and that some would even threaten violence over its mistreatment) is part of a larger more generalized hostility revealed regularly on his blog, Pharyngula. Myers appears to lump religion, superstition, the supernatural, spirituality, and any discussion of appreciation for the sacred into a more or less homogeneous stew of stupidity fit for only the weak and the gullible:

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

-from "It's A Frackin' Cracker"


I'm going to need lots and lots of people to rise up and follow suit, subjecting old, dishonest institutions of hardened dogma to our chief weapon of ridicule and deris…our two weapons of ridicule, derision and laughter…no, three weapons of ridicule, derision, laughter, and skeptici…oh, never mind. You know what I mean...

Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet... You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance...

-from "The Great Desecration"

So we arrive back at the question of living civilly in a culturally and religiously diverse society. For those who are not Catholic, or Christian, or in any sense devoutly religious, the idea that people would get so upset over what is presumed to be an ordinary object can seem absurd or frightening. For those who are strongly irreligious and aspiritual, this impression is magnified. Since they have no reason to see the host (or for the irreligious anything) as sacred, neither the body of Christ nor the host is an object of their reverence. But does it need to be in order to be deserving of respect? Is the desire to deflate the beliefs of others a justification for incivility?

On his former blog Even the Devils Believe Chris Tessone, a priest in the Independent Catholic Christian Church, assessed the situation thusly:

Myers' response — and that of his readers — takes much from the unhinged anti-religious movement of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The idea is that if any religious people do something bad, all religious people should suffer. If any religious person is a bit thoughtless, blame all religious people for being superstitious fundamentalist zealots.

Attacking people, as Myers does, simply because they hold practices and beliefs you don't understand is one of the most poisonous actions one can take against those who are Other, and the body politic itself. It is disruptive to the best traditions of a pluralistic society like ours — just as abuses against the Koran have been in war zones American soldiers have been active in recently. This kind of behavior has absolutely no place in our society.

Jimmy Akin, a Roman Catholic with an eponymous blog who posted extensively about Myers' attitudes and actions concerning the Eucharist (and who has attempted to spark a campaign to have Myers fired on the grounds he is unfit to work at a public liberal arts university) echoed Tessone's sentiment...

[T]he statement that he would desecrate the Eucharist "joyfully and with laughter in my heart" unambiguously indicates that this is not a dispassionate scientific demonstration of the falsity of Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist.

[I]t's a snide jab at religious belief based on an overly simplistic understanding of that belief.

In Myers' case it is also a deliberate and cruel violation of the most deeply felt religious sensibilities of other human beings. He's not just saying he doesn't see evidence for God. He's proposing to deliberately desecrate what other humans hold most sacred, which is bound to stir passionate feelings and cause profound personal pain to every faithful Catholic who hears of it, including those who are not sending him hate mail and who have caused no harm and done nothing to bring about this situation.

Even if PZ Myers does not respect the Eucharist, he should respect those people...

-from "Bad Science"


Although he carried out his action. in his words, to support the idea that "Nothing must be held sacred" (also trashing a few pages of The God Delusion, a book with which he is in sympathy), he did not merely tell people that nothing must be held sacred. Nor did he argue for it. Claiming that nothing must be held sacred or proposing arguments for this proposition are a subject that can be discussed in a civil, respectful manner.

Instead, P. Z. Myers surreptitiously obtained and then desecrated something that is held most sacred by numerous individuals. He went out of his way to offend, to provoke the most deeply held sentiments of others, and he did so in full knowledge of what he was doing, as witnessed by the fact that he complains repeatedly on his blog about all of the outraged complaints he has been receiving from Catholics via e-mail...

P. Z. Myers has demonstrated that he will go out of his way to offend the sensibilities of anybody who holds anything sacred, to treat whatever they hold sacred with public contempt. The problem thus is not limited to Catholics and Muslims. Since, in Myers own words, "Nothing must be held sacred," ...he is willing to desecrate anything that others do hold sacred...

-from "P.Z. Meyers Must Be Fired"

One irony of this situation is that Myers is privileging his beliefs (including the conviction that nothing is or should be considered sacred) to the point of making it acceptable to treat any contradictory views held by others with total contempt. That chafes against the spirit of the secular and progressive movements' drive for democratic plurality in religious views (including irreligion and atheism), but it does not violate the personal liberty of Catholics.

The personal liberty of one citizen does not permit the subversion of another's - that is, you can believe what you want so long as it doesn't lead to unreasonable inconvenience or harm to someone else. This is the core principle behind many articles of the Bill of Rights, including the freedoms of speech and of religion, as Myers' correctly cites in his reply to a complaint by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy:

Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can't interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn't happened — all I've done is laugh at you.

Each person can decide for her or himself whether or not she or he thinks Myers went too far by employing gleeful derision in challenging a central element of Catholicism, but given that:

• his actions neither prove nor disprove whether a consecrated host is sacred;
• his actions are geared at provoking animosity as opposed to introspection;
• his response fails to address appropriate/inappropriate relationships and responses to what we most revere and cherish in favor of being dismissive; and
• the episode plays into the more banal stereotypes of atheists,

I have to say this has not so much been a victory for atheism so much as an indication of the failures in dialogue between those at the poles of theism and atheism. For those who are adamant that the bottom line in all of this is that "it's just a cracker", keep that in mind the next time someone gestures their strong disagreement or frustration with you. (After all, it's just a finger ;oP)