- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 1,470
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lachean vs niftydrifty: Do the “new atheists” misunderstand spirituality?
Do the “new atheists” (NAs) misunderstand spirituality?
I’ve read here and there through the works of a few of the NAs. The most prominent NAs are Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I’ve skimmed the work of each of these authors, and am most familiar with Hitchens and Dawkins. I’ve not yet read anything by these authors that refutes what I have to say below.
From what I’ve read (and I could be wrong, but) it seems to me that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. Lachean, being more thoroughly acquainted with the works of these sheisters, has graciously accepted my challenge to explore the question in this private debate. I will attempt to argue that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. I believe that Lachean will argue here that the NAs do indeed understand spirituality, and that it is really niftydrifty whom is confused.
In addition to the main question, Lachean and I may even discuss all manner of things having to do with religion/science, etc. I hope so.
I will be approaching this question from the vantage point of someone whom has had a meager background in Liberal Protestantism but is more like a non-denom Christian Humanist.
I’ll make the OP brief. I could go on for days and attempt to be detailed, but I’ll admit I’m far from being a writer, or of having worked this out to the point of being worthy of publishing it, or something. So, I’ll just spell out what I essentially believe, and let Lachean tear it apart, as he usually does, so that we can get into it.
=====
Obviously, for a pure “rational” atheist whom believes in science, the idea that there is some kind of thing out there called “God,” that no one can't see, hear, touch, or feel, is absurd. To compound the matter, this alleged thing is supposedly omnipotent and eternal. The purely rational atheist takes a look at religion and confidently files it alongside superstitions and fairy tales.
I believe that when atheists do this, they are making a mistake. I don’t believe that religion’s language is the same as the language of the scientist. To do so is to misunderstand religion. The language of religion is the language of poetry, of metaphor and allegory. The language of science is that of literal explanation. Religion and science both get at different aspects of the real world, and they do it in two completely different ways. Religion can’t, and shouldn’t, provide explanations for how the world works. Similarly, science can’t provide explanations for artistic experiences or a process for our growth as people.
Religion does not equal superstition, and I’ll explain why.
Our brains seem wired for allegory and parables. A “deeper,” non-literal meaning resides in these things. We get “turned on” by myths, metaphor, allusions, and symbols. This is the language of religion.
Often, throughout history, religion has been used to provide scientific answers or explanations. It’s my opinion that when this has been done, to do so was to go against the very purpose of religion. And, I’m not alone in this.
Religion has also been used (or abused) throughout history as a means to deceive, manipulate or utilize other people. This is incredibly unfortunate, and I also believe that it isn’t the essence of religion. Science is not blamed for those whom practice it poorly, and so should religion not be, either, regardless of whether or not it is commonplace.
All of the major religions in existence today, in essence, are trying to get at the same thing. The point is to lose learned behaviors that are counter to our pure nature as human beings. Religious texts describe transcendent things. Anyone that has never had a transcendent experience, or that especially doesn’t prefer to look for it in a religious text, will never get, or ever have a use for, religion.
What do I mean by “transcendent?” When we were young children, we hadn’t yet learned about prejudices and negative behaviors. Some negative behaviors are on a societal level and some are on a personal level. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. Some tribal behavior is necessary and beneficial, but other behaviors are negative and lead to everything undesirable, including war. Negative, personal, learned behaviors will cause us to lie in order to protect our egos, deceive others in order to get ahead, or to greedily keep things for ourselves when we don’t need everything we have. Transcendence in a spiritual sense, is to move beyond these learned or assumed behaviors.
Unfortunately, religion often gets used to reinforce, not lose, negative tribal behavior. Religion itself can become a false idol, warned about in scripture.
I’m not alone in this belief, either. Here’s an excellent book on the subject.
Richard Dawkins has said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwin didn’t provide any ammunition against religion or God. Not in my opinion. Darwin only did away with natural theology, and I say good riddance. Natural theology is pointless, counter productive, and IMO, has little to do with personal spiritual growth, letting go of our egos, our learned behaviors and prejudices, or enhancing our sense of community.
Dawkins is an incredibly gifted writer … about science. He’s a poor philosopher if he thinks (in this day and age) that William Paley is cutting edge. I haven’t seen many living theologists that overly preoccupied with digging up and refuting the work of an old fossil like David Hume lately, have you?
So, to get at the heart of the matter, what is God? I believe that God is something that essentially transcends words. But I think it’s basically the thing that holds everything together. The similar feelings we all have as people, regardless of nationality. The thing that makes you shiver when you hear good music. It’s all of these things. It’s something I can’t explain. Only metaphors and allegory can get at it.
I do believe that there is some overlap, because after all, we live in the world, and religion and science are two valid, but very different, ways of looking at the world. I think that God is actually the processes that are in natural selection. The reason that stuff in nature “spirals.” The way that veins, river systems, and lightning all kinda look alike. But don’t mistake what I’ve just said for natural theology. I won’t attempt to offer an explanation for these things using the language of religion. Religion is about allegory. Allegories that are also real. The language of science will offer explanations for those phenomena, which are meaningful and enlightening. It is a mistake to give explanations for these phenomena with the language of religion. At the same time, I think that science can get at our mental processes, but that it would be a mistake to use the language of science to describe “the feeling you get when you look to the west,” “déjà vu,” or the way an innocent question by a child makes you smile.
I have a friend, a generally non-religious person, whom has a habit of saying that whatever tickles his fancy “is god.” “Dude, Stevie Ray is god.” “This beer is god.” I know exactly what he means. It’s a silly example, but he’s saying that something about the stuff he enjoys is transcendent. The really good stuff is void of personal hang-ups, ego, flaws, or what-have-you. It is “god.” It is perfect. It is something that we strive for.
And this is what prayer is about. Prayer is not “wish making.” It’s a state that we place ourselves in, where we make ourselves humble to the thing that is common in all of us, and that was there before we were born and will linger after we are dead.
Here is an example from scripture, which I think illustrates the point of religion pretty well:
What is meant by “raised to life” in the above passage? What is meant by “life?” If we take it literally, the passage can’t instruct us, or be an example for us here today. If the word is understood in a metaphorical sense, then the passage is filled with symbolism and meaning. The words are metaphorical, but they hint at things that are real. They instruct our lives and can be very thought-provoking and a springboard for ruminations or meditation.
It seems obvious to me that people whose favorite pastimes are deriding others and immersing themselves in the literalness of things, would find no use for religion or spirituality. Religion is about neither.
Do the “new atheists” (NAs) misunderstand spirituality?
I’ve read here and there through the works of a few of the NAs. The most prominent NAs are Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I’ve skimmed the work of each of these authors, and am most familiar with Hitchens and Dawkins. I’ve not yet read anything by these authors that refutes what I have to say below.
From what I’ve read (and I could be wrong, but) it seems to me that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. Lachean, being more thoroughly acquainted with the works of these sheisters, has graciously accepted my challenge to explore the question in this private debate. I will attempt to argue that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. I believe that Lachean will argue here that the NAs do indeed understand spirituality, and that it is really niftydrifty whom is confused.
In addition to the main question, Lachean and I may even discuss all manner of things having to do with religion/science, etc. I hope so.
I will be approaching this question from the vantage point of someone whom has had a meager background in Liberal Protestantism but is more like a non-denom Christian Humanist.
I’ll make the OP brief. I could go on for days and attempt to be detailed, but I’ll admit I’m far from being a writer, or of having worked this out to the point of being worthy of publishing it, or something. So, I’ll just spell out what I essentially believe, and let Lachean tear it apart, as he usually does, so that we can get into it.
=====
Obviously, for a pure “rational” atheist whom believes in science, the idea that there is some kind of thing out there called “God,” that no one can't see, hear, touch, or feel, is absurd. To compound the matter, this alleged thing is supposedly omnipotent and eternal. The purely rational atheist takes a look at religion and confidently files it alongside superstitions and fairy tales.
I believe that when atheists do this, they are making a mistake. I don’t believe that religion’s language is the same as the language of the scientist. To do so is to misunderstand religion. The language of religion is the language of poetry, of metaphor and allegory. The language of science is that of literal explanation. Religion and science both get at different aspects of the real world, and they do it in two completely different ways. Religion can’t, and shouldn’t, provide explanations for how the world works. Similarly, science can’t provide explanations for artistic experiences or a process for our growth as people.
Religion, or spirituality, when it is practiced as I believe it should be, and has been by millions of people, isn’t used in place of science or in place of reason. It’s used for something else, namely, self-improvement, and community.Lachean said:“… its not that [Hitchens] believes religion is a problem to begin with, its that he thinks that mysticism rather than science, and using faith rather than reason is a mistake to begin with.”
Religion does not equal superstition, and I’ll explain why.
Our brains seem wired for allegory and parables. A “deeper,” non-literal meaning resides in these things. We get “turned on” by myths, metaphor, allusions, and symbols. This is the language of religion.
Often, throughout history, religion has been used to provide scientific answers or explanations. It’s my opinion that when this has been done, to do so was to go against the very purpose of religion. And, I’m not alone in this.
Religion has also been used (or abused) throughout history as a means to deceive, manipulate or utilize other people. This is incredibly unfortunate, and I also believe that it isn’t the essence of religion. Science is not blamed for those whom practice it poorly, and so should religion not be, either, regardless of whether or not it is commonplace.
All of the major religions in existence today, in essence, are trying to get at the same thing. The point is to lose learned behaviors that are counter to our pure nature as human beings. Religious texts describe transcendent things. Anyone that has never had a transcendent experience, or that especially doesn’t prefer to look for it in a religious text, will never get, or ever have a use for, religion.
What do I mean by “transcendent?” When we were young children, we hadn’t yet learned about prejudices and negative behaviors. Some negative behaviors are on a societal level and some are on a personal level. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. Some tribal behavior is necessary and beneficial, but other behaviors are negative and lead to everything undesirable, including war. Negative, personal, learned behaviors will cause us to lie in order to protect our egos, deceive others in order to get ahead, or to greedily keep things for ourselves when we don’t need everything we have. Transcendence in a spiritual sense, is to move beyond these learned or assumed behaviors.
Unfortunately, religion often gets used to reinforce, not lose, negative tribal behavior. Religion itself can become a false idol, warned about in scripture.
I’m not alone in this belief, either. Here’s an excellent book on the subject.
Richard Dawkins has said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwin didn’t provide any ammunition against religion or God. Not in my opinion. Darwin only did away with natural theology, and I say good riddance. Natural theology is pointless, counter productive, and IMO, has little to do with personal spiritual growth, letting go of our egos, our learned behaviors and prejudices, or enhancing our sense of community.
Dawkins is an incredibly gifted writer … about science. He’s a poor philosopher if he thinks (in this day and age) that William Paley is cutting edge. I haven’t seen many living theologists that overly preoccupied with digging up and refuting the work of an old fossil like David Hume lately, have you?
So, to get at the heart of the matter, what is God? I believe that God is something that essentially transcends words. But I think it’s basically the thing that holds everything together. The similar feelings we all have as people, regardless of nationality. The thing that makes you shiver when you hear good music. It’s all of these things. It’s something I can’t explain. Only metaphors and allegory can get at it.
I do believe that there is some overlap, because after all, we live in the world, and religion and science are two valid, but very different, ways of looking at the world. I think that God is actually the processes that are in natural selection. The reason that stuff in nature “spirals.” The way that veins, river systems, and lightning all kinda look alike. But don’t mistake what I’ve just said for natural theology. I won’t attempt to offer an explanation for these things using the language of religion. Religion is about allegory. Allegories that are also real. The language of science will offer explanations for those phenomena, which are meaningful and enlightening. It is a mistake to give explanations for these phenomena with the language of religion. At the same time, I think that science can get at our mental processes, but that it would be a mistake to use the language of science to describe “the feeling you get when you look to the west,” “déjà vu,” or the way an innocent question by a child makes you smile.
I have a friend, a generally non-religious person, whom has a habit of saying that whatever tickles his fancy “is god.” “Dude, Stevie Ray is god.” “This beer is god.” I know exactly what he means. It’s a silly example, but he’s saying that something about the stuff he enjoys is transcendent. The really good stuff is void of personal hang-ups, ego, flaws, or what-have-you. It is “god.” It is perfect. It is something that we strive for.
And this is what prayer is about. Prayer is not “wish making.” It’s a state that we place ourselves in, where we make ourselves humble to the thing that is common in all of us, and that was there before we were born and will linger after we are dead.
Here is an example from scripture, which I think illustrates the point of religion pretty well:
Christ’s example can inform our daily lives. The Gospels are rich with symbolism. The stories are “true” in this sense. We all have “crosses” that we must bear. And we have things that we must put behind us, just as Jesus puts Peter’s words, i.e. “Satan,” behind him. In the passage, Peter doesn’t understand why Jesus must do what he needs to do. Peter wants Jesus to do the thing that is comfortable. But in order to grow as a person, to “come after” Jesus, we must “deny” ourselves, our assumed, learned personalities, and not forfeit our souls. We can’t always do the comfortable, easy thing.From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.” – Matthew 16:21-27
What is meant by “raised to life” in the above passage? What is meant by “life?” If we take it literally, the passage can’t instruct us, or be an example for us here today. If the word is understood in a metaphorical sense, then the passage is filled with symbolism and meaning. The words are metaphorical, but they hint at things that are real. They instruct our lives and can be very thought-provoking and a springboard for ruminations or meditation.
It seems obvious to me that people whose favorite pastimes are deriding others and immersing themselves in the literalness of things, would find no use for religion or spirituality. Religion is about neither.
Last edited: