Taking the new atheists seriously

[Devadatta]

I’ve noticed a tendency for believers to dismiss out of hand the new atheists – Richard Dawkins and his growing list of friends - and that’s understandable since these atheists don’t really offer much space for dialogue. But I’ve also noticed that even when a few defenders of faith debate the atheists they tend to dismiss them too easily. You might say they answer simplicities with simplicities. I’ve followed a lot this back and forth over the past year or so, and I’ve found that even the most interesting of defenders, like Chris Hedges, who’s written against fundamentalism, don’t go far enough in really getting at the root of things. (Though I may be doing him an injustice here: I haven’t read his new book with the nifty title: I Don’t Believe in Atheists.)

I think this has so far been a missed opportunity. The attacks of the atheists may be ridiculously broad and lacking in nuance, but this very broadness of attack allows people to really look at the big picture. And while one could analyze their arguments to show where they contradict themselves and where their actual target of abuse is unclear or floating, I don’t think that leads to very useful debates. I think it’s the big picture that counts here.

And from what I’ve heard and read of people like Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc., really boils down to two lines of attack, two basic problems: the problem of ideology, and the problem of the non-rational.

First, ideology. I’ve made the obvious point before that ideology, in the modern sense of a dynamic rationalization of power, is rooted in the biblical tradition. I won’t rehearse the arguments here except to say that perhaps this point isn’t made that often because it’s so obvious. Until relatively recently in history every intellectual and political current both in the West and in the lands of Islam has passed through the template of the biblical worldview. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that modern totalitarian ideologies of left and right so closely follow that same template.

The problem here I think is that neither side wants to take full responsibility. Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, discusses the biblical roots of modern totalitarianism, but his take is that such totalitarianism comes from the bible, and that any form of it recurring in a modern or secular setting is by definition “religion”. Eliminate religion, therefore, and the problem is solved.

Of course, it’s easy for believers to point out that even if they accept there’s a kind of ideological virus rooted in the bible, that virus has long been on the loose, quite independent of religion. In fact, a believer might very well say that religion is more necessary than ever because only religion has the wherewithal to bring the virus under control.

But again believers tend to avoid responsibility as well, by refusing to acknowledge the existence of the virus, or the obvious historical influence of religion on totalitarian, absolutist ideologies. (At the same time of course there’s the tendency to take credit for every perceived benefit of “Judeo-Christian Civilization”.)

Now I understand that this idea runs counter to a very basic belief, that there was some inerrant beginning, which later generations somehow corrupted. And yet there’s no rational evidence I know of that there ever was any such beginning, that there existed in some misty time a person or persons who got it exactly right. For me all evidence points in the opposite direction: that all scriptures have been assembled in the midst of our perennial human confusion, that however much truth they may contain we can never escape the problem of interpretation.

Here I think is where even liberal Christians often fall short: they’re profoundly reluctant to wrestle head on with the central problem of ideology.

Bottom line: I come up the middle on this. I think both sides fail to come to grips with the problem of ideology itself, and instead blame religion on the one hand and secularism on the other. With Christopher Hitchens it’s fairly obvious. He’s a polemicist and an ideologue. To grapple with ideology itself hits far too close to home. But it’s a problem everyone has: how to turn the will to power to good account, without tumbling to its seductions.

As for the non-rational, I’ve been struck by little side comments and vignettes: the atheist admiring a cathedral, religious art or the night sky, claiming to need no religion sanction to talk about truth and beauty (The sour Mr. Hitchens claims that, believe or not.) But here they’re invoking levels of experience that are not rational, and once they do that they kind of give the game away. Invoking cathedrals and art in particular only call up the depth of reality that has little to do with creeds and ideologies. It’s like the old saying that if God didn’t exist we would have to invent her. I wouldn’t take that literally, in the sense that we must reinvent a certain kind of god-talk or a certain kind of god, but we would have to reinvent some enabling narratives for what is most fundamental to our experience.

So again, I’m in the middle on this. I don’t think that wiping religion off the map solves our problems. I would prefer to remain in contact with our traditions. But I also don’t think that adherence to the old ideologies can work in the long run either.

What’s missing for me, as I’ve already made clear, is a debate centered on where the problem in my view truly lies: in the ideological virus itself.

[Paladin]

Well, as I live and breathe, Devadatta! Haven't seen you around in ages! So good to see you.
As for your post, great stuff. One might conclude that as humans we are fundamentally insane.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Well, as I live and breathe, Devadatta! Haven't seen you around in ages! So good to see you.
As for your post, great stuff. One might conclude that as humans we are fundamentally insane.

We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Big D and good to see you

What a good OP.

Those of a hazily defined spiritual bent have here on these pages brought me to task for the blanket dismissal of spiritual beliefs. Rationalism is a cold clinical route and is therfor perhaps not truly reflective of the human condition. I personally find it difficult to balance my own aesthetic leanings with the unambiguous dismissal that scientific rational cannot help but reach. But with the big two totalitarian religions that give or allow to be given sanction to the terrible deeds that daily fill our news bulletins I think it is high time we spoke honestly. They were both given to us by Individuals who's only aim was power and totalitarianism. Because of that remit hard wired into these ideologies the progression of atrocities can never be escaped.

You can divorce aesthetics from rationality as an atheist. There are many levels to appreciate a great cathedral without being touched by belief. Pleasure is a neurochemical reaction to stimuli. The eye and the ear can find patterns in many places that create harmonies our pleasure points in the brain find pleasing. (Incidentally we seem to find the greatest pleasure in the incomplete where we have to fill in the gaps). So I dont hold that atheism requires you to give up appreciation of complexity, no matter where it is found. Indeed for me my distaste for Islam and Christianity is tinged with a wonder of their complexity and their ability to pervert the logic of otherwise sane and intelligent individuals.

Religion is not going anywhere soon. The evangelical atheists appeal to a certain fringe group. The cult of atheism does not yet exist though. Its few champions are usually given media attention just to spice up a debate, to create good TV, than to have the issues truly debated. The rich and powerful require the soma of religion and as long as they do there is not going to be a widespread and real debate about the value of religion to human kind. Because rational analysis shows that value to be entirely negative.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

OMG!! I love that!!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

OMG!! I love that!!

SG always manages to find just the right quote, it's part of her genius

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

SG always manages to find just the right quote, it's part of her genius

Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.
~Carl Gustav Jung

[wil]

I guess I'll have to read these books unless someone can describe this ideological virus that creates such.

I also don't have the world history knowledge to prove or disprove what I'm thinking, but the Abrahamic religions have only had any impact for 3,000 years and anything relating to a global impact for 1,500 or so.

So my question lies in dynasties in the east, in societies in Africa, South America (Mayan, Inca) these had differing beliefs, was the ideology also present there which caused the regimes which held power for centuries?

I'm wondering not if the 'virus' existed prior to the bible, but which came first the chicken or the egg, ie is this 'virus' in the bible due to the society that existed?

[dauer]

On that note, I saw this article:

Waiting for Spiritual Atheists — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

It's good to see things written by other spiritually-engaged non-believers, though I wish it didn't use its closing to promote the NSP. I think I will pick up a copy of The Plausible God and maybe Waiting for God too.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm wondering not if the 'virus' existed prior to the bible, but which came first the chicken or the egg, ie is this 'virus' in the bible due to the society that existed?

I'd say unequivocally yes to that. The bible is more a vector, or transmitter, a compliant host. A chalice of sweet nectar laced with a deadly toxin. The real virus is selfishness and powerlust of those that use the toxin knowingly.

tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I'd say unequivocally yes to that. The bible is more a vector, or transmitter, a compliant host. A chalice of sweet nectar laced with a deadly toxin. The real virus is selfishness and powerlust of those that use the toxin knowingly.

tao

So are we talking some illuminati or knights of templar or masonic conspiracy here? Were Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed (pbuh) all masons?

We look at the bible 66 books, do you feel the cannonizers that compiled were these knowinglees or all the authors and editors?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

So are we talking some illuminati or knights of templar or masonic conspiracy here? Were Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed (pbuh) all masons?

We look at the bible 66 books, do you feel the cannonizers that compiled were these knowinglees or all the authors and editors?

For Christianity it was the Emperor Constantine who laid out the pattern of controlling the masses with a monotheistic and therefore manageable one size fits all doctrine. For Islam, very probably influenced by Constantines example, Uthman did the same. Both books contain a variety of passages that can be rendered to a particular purpose as necessary. But overall the blanket purpose is to make people follow the law laid down from the top. Top down law is always unjust.

The compilation and inclusion was not carried out at one time but by several of the godfathers of religion down the ages. Just look at the Pope now trying to rewrite his Nazi past and his pivotal involvement in Child Sex abuse cover ups. Religious leaders are politicians not spiritual leaders.

Tao

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by dauer

On that note, I saw this article:

Waiting for Spiritual Atheists — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

It's good to see things written by other spiritually-engaged non-believers, though I wish it didn't use its closing to promote the NSP. I think I will pick up a copy of The Plausible God and maybe Waiting for God too.

Larry Bush calls himself a “spiritual atheist.” He would quite like to join in with the liberal/Left spiritual movements of his boomer peers, but he can’t, because they insist on believing in supernatural entities and assistance. “Is it so hard to keep hope alive,” he asks, “without believing that the entire universe is on your side?”

This is kind of where I'm at as well. Can't we be concerned for the planet and live sorta granola spiritual without wanting to play dress up and believing in deities? Does it always have to be about woo woo stuff, or couldn't we just be organic and concerned without all that?

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

This is kind of where I'm at as well. Can't we be concerned for the planet and live sorta granola spiritual without wanting to play dress up and believing in deities? Does it always have to be about woo woo stuff, or couldn't we just be organic and concerned without all that?

Chris

Yes!!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

This is kind of where I'm at as well. Can't we be concerned for the planet and live sorta granola spiritual without wanting to play dress up and believing in deities? Does it always have to be about woo woo stuff, or couldn't we just be organic and concerned without all that?

Chris

Sure we can, but won't it feel awkward when the Angelic Celestial Super Intelligent Space Beings show up to fix everything (deus ex machina) ?