Please Log in to Vote.

7 out of 8 members found this useful.

New Atheism as Mysticism

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Does it strike anyone else a little odd that the violence and bloodshed perpetuated in the name of God in this post-911 age makes the New Atheism of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins look like a moral imperative for the 21st century?[1]

 

For centuries we have been told that without God we are nothing more than egotistical animals fighting it out for our own survival, and now – with the civilized world under increasing threat from religious fundamentalist of all flavors – the traditional equation of religion and the good life has been turned upside-down… In the present day it seems that our human dignity and self-respect needs to be asserted in no uncertain terms against those religious adherents who claim to be hard-wired to the will of God!

 

But the New Atheist’s rational critique of religion is nothing new - philosophers from Hume to Kant to Nietzsche have been saying this for about 500 years now… But what is new is that the New Atheists are not merely atheists in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. deny belief in the existence of God) – they are "anti-theists "– or as Christopher Hitchens argues in God is Not Great, his latest NY Times best-seller - the notion of God as a Cosmic Designer or a Celestial Dictator that is aware of our every thought and deed is a wicked, poisonous and evil idea - and  we cought to celebrate the fact that it is not true...

From an Integralist's perspective the conventional wisdom is that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris (and others) are just throwing out the baby with the bathwater – they want to demolish the archaic, magic and mythic versions of God but they will not allow the rational, post-modern and integral versions of God any legitimacy… But if we take a closer look this is not so!

 

Christopher Hitchens on Transcendence

 

A contrarian philosopher with a razor-sharp wit and a blatant disregard for all things sacred, Christopher Hitchens has made a career out of exploding liberal illusions (see his formidable critiques of pop culture icons Bill Clinton, Princess Diana and Mother Theresa). However, while he argues that the bad things innate to our species are strengthened and sanctified by religion, Hitchens does have an unexpected open-ness to what he calls “the order of the transcendent” or the mystical dimensions of human experience.

 

With a kind of `luminous” faith in humankind, Hitchens at least starts out by affirming to the Socratic oath of ultimate Not-Knowing that launched the Western  philosophical tradition, where his definition of an educated person is that you have some idea how ignorant you are.

 

But moreover, he also declares his appreciation for mystical dimension of human experience (i.e. higher states of consciousness) – what he calls “the numinous” or “the transcendent” – and gives examples of where this sublime dimension can be encountered in everyday life: the beauties of science, the extraordinary marvels of nature, the wonder and consolations of philosophy, the infinite splendors of literature and poetry – all of which have mystical and devotional aspects that Hitchens is quite prepared to honor and include in his otherwise dark and ironic view of the world... 

 

In all of these pursuits, Hitchens claims that there may be found a sense of awe and reverence that does not depend at all on any of our man made religions – and he verges on an Integral (or second-tier) perspective here in so far as his openness to the transcendent dimension of life is also one that is often bored and sickened by what passes for spirituality in the New Age - ghost stories, UFO tales, tarot charts and the barely veiled narcissism of The Secret, etc...

 

Richard Dawkin’s Mysticism

 

Probably the world’s most steadfast and notorious atheist, Richard Dawkins was up until recently the professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

 

From this colorful writings on Darwinian evolution as a deeper, richer more astonishing account of human origins than what is offered by the Genesis myth, to his most recent interview-debate with Francis Collins[2] (See Time Magazine “God vs. Science” - Sunday, Nov. 05, 2006), Dawkins is also keenly aware of the perpetually surprising and astonishing nature of the world revealed by evolutionary biology and modern science.

 

As Dawkins states to Collins on the belief in God “But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea”, refutable – but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect… I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”

 

Right there we have a statement that any Integralist can whole heartedly affirm, - God is bigger than our minds can contain - and furthermore, according to Dawkins: “There is mystery in the universe, beguiling mystery… There is mystery but not magic, strangeness beyond the wildest imagining, but no spells or witchery, no arbitrary miracles.” 

 

So Dawkins is no denier of the Mystery – he does accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. “To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.”

 

In his Un-weaving the Rainbow, the positive message throughout is Dawkins’ impulses to awe, reverence – the same impulse to and wonder that leads other scientists, philosopher and poets to mysticism… He claims that the scientist has the same wonder, the same sense of the profound, as the mystic, but with an additional impulse: let's find out what we can about it… And in close parallel with the core driver of an Integral approach he concludes the final two paragraphs of this book by saying that human beings are the only animal with a sense of purpose in life, and that our true purpose should be to construct a comprehensive model of how the universe works, i.e. a Kosmology

 

And with that ultimate view of things, Dawkins would do well to read Ken Wilber’s latest work on post-metaphysical spirituality -- a Kosmic Giga-glossary that spans the entire spectrum of humanities experience of the Divine – from volcano gods of primitive tribes to the post-conventional claims of the world’s most realized mystics such as Meister Eckhart or Sri Aurobindo…

 

 

 Sam Harris on Buddhist philosophy

 

 

Another one of the most outspoken atheists in the world today, Sam Harris is also a practitioner of Buddhist meditation, as a tried and tested path to see clearly into the true nature of consciousness.

 

For Harris Buddhism is more a science than a religion, for a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion, for which there is very little empirically tested evidence. In many respects, then, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious trappings, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to further develop humanities spiritual self-understanding. As Sam Harris writes in The End of Faith,

 

“Attentive readers will have noticed that I have been very hard on religions of faith–Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even Hinduism–and have not said much that is derogatory of Buddhism. This is not an accident. While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense… the esoteric teachings of Buddhism offer the most complete methodology we have for discovering the intrinsic freedom of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma… it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge its preeminence as a system of spiritual instructions.”

 

So where the conventional critique of the New Atheist movement is that it’s critique of religious myth and superstition throws out the baby with the bath water by denying higher, deeper forms of spirituality (based on direct experience not beliefs), it is actually the case that all three of the major authors driving this cultural phenomenon we call the New Atheism are mystics or one sort or another, and probably just lack a language that they can use to express their sheer astonishment that anything exists at all...

Cameron



[1] Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.

 

[2] Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, Collins headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint. In The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press), he laid out the arguments for belief in God. Collins believes that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation. If your mind is open about whether God might exist, Collins argues that you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

 

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

A Bundle of Contradictions

Cameron:

 

Good to see you back and as brilliant as ever.

 

I have some contradictory reactions to your piece on modern atheistic critics of the theistic traditions. I’ve thought for a long time we need them badly, those with status who are outside the “system” of organized religion who can grasp what is going on and bring to light its shadow. Without this kind of intelligent critic we get a lot of silliness passed off as divine decree, and at worse the historical and contemporary violence so embarrassingly noted by these critics.

 

One contemporary example can be a place marker for many others. The doctrinal commission of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops within the past week issued an advisory about Reiki, labeling it “medically unproven, unscientific, superstitious and a danger to a believer’s faith.” I did a quick google search and got a hit on an articled carried by the Catholic News Service dated December 17, 2007.(link: www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707062.htm). The article tells of the legend of Mary spilling some of her milk while nursing her child in a grotto near Bethlehem. The spot has been a place of pilgrimage since at least 385 CE and women over the centuries use the limestone dust from the grotto to make a drink which they call “Mary’s Milk” to help them get pregnant. Brother Lawrence, a Franciscan, ten years ago started packaging this limestone dust and offering it to the pilgrims for a small donation. Obviously, this is not medically unproven, unscientific or superstitious or the Catholic Church would certainly intervene to protect the faith of believers! (Cynicism willfully intended).

 

So I cheer Hitchens, Dawkin, Harris, et al on. Please shine your glaring search lights into the dark corners of the theistic religions. And please, don’t pick the low hanging fruit only, the oh, so easy targets of Red Meme mentalities masked behind their godly personas. Go for the super stars: Mother Teresa, John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the like. We need you, for you are a grace from God telling us not to take ourselves so seriously so that we may truly take the Divine seriously.

 

On the other hand, what Harris and his ilk fail to mention is that non-theism or secularism hasn’t room to brag. A mind boggling 50 million human beings died in WWII, most of whom were non-combatants. This wasn’t a religious war. Karen Armstrong has pointed out the horrid failure of secularism to scrub violence out of the human temperament. To believe that we can get rid of violence by getting rid of religion is either the height of hubris or naiveté, I don’t know which. Be assured, despite all the horrors of genocide in the 20th century (and that’s only a small portion of the violence), there are yet more horrors to be visited upon the human race whether in the name of an enlighten intellect (there are more Pol Pots out there) or a pious posture, it doesn’t matter. There is something buried deeply within the human being that seems to impel us toward violence and it will erupt again, and again, and yet again. Blame it on theism, blame it on humanism, blame it on anything you wish. In the final analysis “we have met the enemy and it is us.”

 

One final caution. Hitchens, Dawkin and Harris grew up in, live in, benefit from and inherit the values of a rational society. It is their greatest strengths and their greatest weaknesses. They are the elite of the elite. This, too, has its limits. Despite all the benefits this great age of intelligence and science yields, and no one should ever consider rescinding those benefits, it also has its dark side, a side by definition we cannot see clearly. Be suspicious of those who offer one-size-fits-all answers to the conundrums of human existence. Violence begins in exorcizing our projected shadows. As Saint Edith Stein, philosopher, student of Husserl and Heidegger, and martyr, said: The answer is, there is no answer; that’s the answer. I take her to mean, there is no final human answer. (She became a contemplative Carmelite nun and was gassed at Auschwitz).

 

If the integral theory shows anything, it shows how essential each part is and how necessary cooperation is between all the parts. I cheer on the mystics, and they are mostly hidden. I am in awe of science’s accomplishments. I pray with the women who drink their glass of “Mary’s Milk” hoping for a successful pregnancy. But most of all I pray that God will make me faithful to the revelation of His Son, Jesus, namely that all may be one in Him as He is in the Father and that the human heart, all hearts, may be supple and softened by the unrelenting, unconditional love of God.

 

A bundle of contradictions,

Greg Mayers

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

A Balanced Reading

Cameron, this was a pleasure to read; I appreciate the balanced perspective you've brought to this subject.  I agree with you (and Greg) that there is both value in these critical perspectives (for conventional religion and emergent integral spirituality) and an unrecognized or perhaps under-appreciated mystical "thread" that informs their respective views.  Your section on Dawkins was helpful to me, since even though I have also advocated for an appreciative but critical reading of these critics, I admittedly haven't had a lot of respect for Dawkins' work as a whole.

You've probably seen it, but in case you haven't, I did a blog on the subject of the New Atheists that may be of interest:

Raimon Panikkar and the New Atheists

All the best,

Balder

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Thank you

Thank you Cameron...and Greg ...and others. 

 

 

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

A-theiism

 Cam, great piece. It resonated with my long-held thought that the word athiesm means non-theism, as opposed to necessarily saying God does not exist. A-theism, like ammoral, indicates a method of intentionally not focusing on God or morality, but does not mean you know God to not exist or that you are immoral, just that you are operating independently of theism and morality. And I have also long thought that true spirituality is an ammoral process which happens to produce morality as an effect (rather than as a cause of spirituality). So, why wouldn't there be a similar advantage to an a-God approach which leads us to God (if a form of God, say, in wholeness, etc. is to ever be established later on). To say we know God may be getting in the way of the Way. 

The following little poem, I think expresses the same, or similar, sentiment as this version of a-theism, in the phrase "I don't care if you exist". Although the narator continues to talk to his sense of divinity, he "doesn't care if it exists", but is focused instead on the process of flying or being flown by such a beyond aspect as what we tend to call God or "Lord". I suppose this would be a paradoxical form of the mystical a-theism you wrote about: 

 

Flight of the Bumbling Be

 

 

Thank you, Lord

for this precious gift;

the gift of not caring if you exist.

Does the fat bumble bee care

if the scientists can explain

his aerodynamic invalidation,

his nonexistent reason 

why he can fly?

You fly in the bumble bee.

You fly in this bumbling be. 

 

I am so awkward at being the me you make,

so fat with sin, 

that I shouldn’t be able to lift off 

from this worldly place, this pollen pad

where appetite coats my legs heavily

and my wings are way too small.

But I do fly,

I don’t care if you exist.

I am carefree.

You fly me.

 

 

© 1995 Darrell Moneyhon